'1902. THE LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON. TELEGRAPHIC CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA.' [‎142v] (295/412)

( 84 )
in telegram to Resident, instructing Wahab not to go beyond line shaded
in upon his map. But in subsequent instructions both the limits of survey
and the line shaded in have been ignored. The former clearly includes
cross range containing peak' 7722; the latter clearly includes shaded ran»e
running due north from Jehel Jihaf. Nevertheless, this shadino. is now
ignored, and your proposed line cuts right across it, makes a sweep round
-Dthal 1 valley, leaving to Turks not merely all the places which they seized from
1872 onwards,hut a large number of villages now admittedly belonoing to Amir
some of which they have occupied since Commission met. In other words vou
have reverted to line traced in Wahah’s coloured sketch map of 3rd March
1892 which you rejected in January, and to line in map accompanying
Maitland s letter of 12th October, 1901, which he has since cancelled, further
the shaded hue is unknown to, and is repudiated by, Turkish Commissioners on
spot. Justification of your attitude appears to be that we are only concerned
with status quo at time of WahaVs Report in 1891-92. I submit that this is
inconsistent both with previous attitude of His Majesty’s Government and with
entne raison d etre of Commission. In your letter to Foreign Office of 13th
March, winch they repeated to Turkish Ambassador on 21 th March, you said
that first object, was clear. understanding as to exact course of boundary
at present recognised by British Government, which constitutes the status quo
in other words your status quo was not that of 1892 as represented in Wahab’s
coloured sketch map of 1892, which you had disowned, but the existing status
quo, as determined by the more recent reports of Davies and Maitland, in so
Tnifr W Se f^ er ? n r- inc ° 1 nsistent with limits of survey in accepted map.
ui latest instructions, however, ignore recent status quo, which is fully
described by Davies m his Report of 15th November, 1901, and by Wahab in
Tn S rl ev er f f ^ 23rd A P ri1 ’ 1902 ’ and the y order handmg over to
in T% * t Gntire 7 alle 7 5 * n whlch onl y a small number of villages were
urkish. possession m November, while remainder, right up to Kataba
are either independent, or . under control of Amir of Dthali. Surely this is
most unnecessary and unwise concession, and is in contradiction of entire
proceedings up to date. Moreover, if your status q „o is that of 1892, your
mstinotions are also inconsistent, since they propose claimino- for ourselves
entire Mehrab! country which was admittediy outside Amiri line in 1892 I
north 1 of Jebe^Jihaf 1 " 76 Wahab’s map, we should stick to it
cordfiion J of b nff^ f ’ W f n i a - S south ; and .that status quo should not be
and obsolete • buf S ^ ^ an( l since shown to be both incorrect
adopte^nartitior^o/vn^fi 5 7* e - n C T °f “ ission was started - If ^is view be
Turks beino* bought ontTr 00-11 amin » dalel1 “^bt he made matter of agreement,
advantage fn nprfpvpvl ni 7 ^ 1 com P e . nsa tion elsewhere. Otherwise I see no
when we be^an r Wltd C ^ ) “ ln 5i ssl0n s since we are now worse off than
Governmeufto exmnd haVG n ° m ° re desire tb a n His Majesty’s
vernment to expand Aden Protectorate. But we do not think that all